Chicagoist: Tilting At Windmills

Al

Sat, 19 Nov 2005 02:46:20 -0600

Mr. Smith: First, Could you back up your statement that "The PLAL has created its own line of faux female empowerment characters called A Life of Faith"? From what I have been able to determine, these two organizations are not related. The Life of Faith dolls are suggested as an alternative to AG dolls on the PLAL website, but so are dolls from two other companies. I think it also needs to be clarified that these other dolls were in existence long before the AG/Girls, Inc. controversy. Second, you are either being disingenuous or naive when you say the AG donations are earmarked for Girls, Inc. programs that have nothing to do with activities that sparked the boycott. Surely, you must know how that works. Ever heard of the hard money/soft money scam in political campaigns? Same thing here. Even if Girls, Inc. does faithfully apply the funds to the activities for which they were earmarked, they can easily at the same time be taking money they had previously budgeted for those areas and using it to fund the objectionable activities. Third, you say Girls, Inc. does a lot of good for girls, so we should overlook the things they do that we object to. Did you realize that only .05% of rat poison is actually toxic to mice? The other 99.95% is good food. Should we ignore the toxic activities because the organization may do some good things? I don't think so. And, aside from the things you mentioned that many of us find objectionable, there is a message board where advice is given to girls by Girls, Inc. staff. Check out this link to one such response. http://209.43.123.41/messageboards/showthread.php?s=4c3fad9449dd626bb4a1c2867bc53b01&threadid=4590 Keep in mind that the Girls, Inc. normally has no idea of the age of the girl to whom they are giving advice, nor do they ask. Fourth, the president of Girls, Inc., made the following statement on their website: "Recently, our mission to help girls develop their self-esteem and self-reliance has become the target of false, inflammatory statements from people who are pursuing a narrow political agenda." I'm sorry, but I take offense at the labeling as a "narrow political agenda" my concern that my daughter will wander onto a site that exposes her to things that are inappropriate for her age and espouses values different than our own. The president also doesn't point out which statements are false. As far as I have been able to determine, all the statements I have heard made about the organization are true. It was a very sad day for my daughter and me when we found out the American Girl Company decided to support Girls, Inc.

Mr. Smith

Wed, 02 Nov 2005 10:26:29 -0600

John: A) Obviously, I don't run the PLAL. My qualms with them are stated clearly above. B) I don't use the word "silly" above but OK. Girls, Inc. isn't exclusively pro-choice or pro-life. They're about making sure girls have choices, information and knowledge. If the PLAL doesn't support Girls, Inc. then fine. No one's asking them to. But it's disingenuous for them to shame American Girl for supporting an organization that does good works esp. since the basis for their criticism is invalid (another issue I address above). I'm not against their right to object but I disagree with the basis for their objection. As for contacting Senator Obama, it appears he shares our views so he doesn't need us to chime in. Thanks for reading.

John Powers

Wed, 02 Nov 2005 09:48:50 -0600

Does the author run the PLAL? Does he make descions for them? What are his qualms with the PLAL? None of these are addressed in his post. The PLAL is 100% pro-life. The Girl's Inc people are not. So the PLAL does not support Girl's Inc. Where is the misguidance? Please contact Senator Obama and tell me why this is "Silly". JBP

Bob Rice

Mon, 24 Oct 2005 12:24:40 -0600

I don't think the author is saying that PLAL does not have the right to picket. It seems like the article is saying that their beef with American Girl Place is just misguided, which is definitely is.

John Powers

Sat, 22 Oct 2005 14:44:45 -0600

So if I am reading this right, freedom of speech OK when you agree with the speaker, but no good when you disagree. JBP

sigy

Sat, 22 Oct 2005 08:54:30 -0600

Informed buyers start your engines!! I have the same reaction as Mr.Smith, what's the problem! Maybe it's Pro Life's history of using inconsiderate methods which turns people off to them right away! (I guess we have to let them have their say too.) If they feel compelled to save us from ourselves they could learn to peacefully hand out factual, nonbiased information to store patrons about Girl,Inc. for a change.(Leave those god-awful mangled fetus pictures at home--thank you!)

Benjy

Fri, 21 Oct 2005 18:04:43 -0600

That thing looks too much like an Astros logo -- no good!

Felicity

Fri, 21 Oct 2005 16:56:22 -0600

Those Life of Faith girls are such copyright infringements on the American Girls, too. Everything from the visual images to the character descriptions. Ridiculous.

Dean Wormer

Fri, 21 Oct 2005 15:38:11 -0600

Lost, Dumb and Lazy is no way to go through life...